I am not mistrustful. When a man writes or speaks, I believe that he thinks what he says.
What is the question? To ascertain2 which is the more advantageous3 for you, restriction4 or liberty.
I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is for each one to prove his case.
You will see how easy recrimination would be on this ground.
We are, they say, agents of the English, because some of us have used the English words meeting, free trader!
And do not they use the English words drawback and budget?
We imitate Cobden and the English democracy!
Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of protection?
We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux and the South.
Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the manufacturing North?
We favor the secret designs of the ministry9, which desires to turn public attention away from the protective policy.
Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more than anybody else by this protective regime?
But that is not the point in issue.
The question which I shall not lose sight of is this:
Which is better for the working-classes, to be free or not to be free to purchase from abroad?
Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. You will be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then for your own good that your liberty be restricted."
This objection recurs11 in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen—what will become of the national labor12?"
Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier13 at Boulogne, and said to every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does it suit you to barter14 your Newcastle coal for this Champagne15 wine? I ask you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average judgment16, it can be said that our national labor, taken as a whole, would be harmed by it?
Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering to exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters17 were made instead of four; and if the intervention18 of merchants and money was called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?
Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale19 to sell again at retail20, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that commerce consists of mutual21 barter of products for products, of services for services. If, then, one barter does not injure the national labor, since it implies as much national labor given as foreign labor received, a hundred million of them cannot hurt the country.
But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being22 everywhere.
There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that ground.
Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be some displacement23 of labor.
Then they dilate24 upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, this displacement must cause. They exaggerate and amplify25 them; they make of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them as the exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist26 you under the standard of monopoly.
These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and I must frankly27 admit one thing, that it always embarrasses even the friends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You will understand why.
When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it.
Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, then still others, and this forms a great edifice28.
Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice this particularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glance to be right, because it is easier to show the disorder29 which must accompany the reform than the order which will follow it.
The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name the persons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil of a reformer can only refer to the general good, which must insensibly diffuse30 itself among the masses. This does not have the effect which the other has.
Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappy people," they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The master distributes floggings, but he also distributes rations31."
It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but his own labor which feeds both himself and master.
When the convents of Spain were reformed, they said to the beggars, "Where will you find broth32 and clothing? The Abbot is your providence33. Is it not very convenient to apply to him?"
And the beggars said: "That is true. If the Abbot goes, we see what we lose, but we do not see what will come in its place."
They do not notice that if the convents gave alms they lived on alms, so that the people had to give them more than they could receive back.
Thus, workmen, a monopoly imperceptibly puts taxes on your shoulders, and then furnishes you work with the proceeds.
Your false friends say to you: If there was no monopoly, who would furnish you work?
You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolists procure34 us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain.
For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then give you back a part of it for your labor.
Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each other work. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, the shoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. The tailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. So it will be with all occupations.
They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines and the mills.
I do not believe it. But if this does happen, it is necessarily because there will be more labor freely in the open air.
For if, as they say, these mines and spinning mills can be sustained only by the aid of taxes imposed on everybody for their benefit, these taxes once abolished, everybody will be more comfortably off, and it is the comfort of all which feeds the labor of each one.
Excuse me if I linger at this demonstration35. I have so great a desire to see you on the side of liberty.
In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five per cent. profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francs invested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. The difference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What do they do? They assess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfully disguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part of the tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buy your hatchets36, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: If you do not pay this tax, Mondor can work no longer, and his employes, John and James, will be without labor. If this tax was remitted37, would you not get work yourselves, and on your own account too?
And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method of obtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his loss into a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will be profit for all.
You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reform there will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhile John and James will be on the street."
To which I answer:
First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man who has two arms and a heart is not long on the street.
Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of its funds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do not myself believe will occur.
Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which is better for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutely necessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or I know them ill. God grant that it may be the same with employers.
Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? It seems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that they discuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, without once pronouncing the word justice. They know, however, full well that the situation is unjust. Why, then, have they not the courage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity38 prevails in the country, but it is of advantage to you and it must be sustained." Why? Because they know that you would answer, No.
But it is not true that this iniquity is profitable to you. Give me your attention for a few moments and judge for yourselves.
What do they protect in France? Articles made by great manufacturers in great establishments, iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that this is done not in the interest of the employer, but in your interest, in order to insure you wages.
But every time that foreign labor presents itself in the market in such a form that it may hurt you, but not the great manufacturers, do they not allow it to come in?
Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and shoes? Why are they allowed to establish themselves at your side when cloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made in great mills owned by manufacturing legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their rooms.
These gentlemen want no competition in the turning of wool into cloth, because that is their business; but when it comes to converting cloth into clothes, they admit competition, because that is your trade.
When they made railroads they excluded English rails, but they imported English workmen to make them. Why? It is very simple; because English rails compete with the great rolling mills, and English muscles compete only with yours.
We do not ask them to keep out German tailors and English laborers39. We ask that cloth and rails may be allowed to come in. We ask justice for all, equality before the law for all.
It is a mockery to tell us that these Custom House restrictions40 have your advantage in view. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, millers41, masons, blacksmiths, merchants, grocers, jewelers, butchers, bakers42 and dressmakers, I challenge you to show me a single instance in which restriction profits you, and if you wish, I will point out four where it hurts you.
And after all, just see how much of the appearance of truth this self-denial, which your journals attribute to the monopolists, has.
I believe that we can call that the natural rate of wages which would establish itself naturally if there were freedom of trade. Then, when they tell you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if they told you that it added a surplus to your natural wages. Now, an extra natural surplus of wages must be taken from somewhere; it does not fall from the moon; it must be taken from those who pay it.
You are then brought to this conclusion, that, according to your pretended friends, the protective system has been created and brought into the world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed to laborers!
Tell me, is that probable?
Where is your place in the Chamber43 of Peers? When did you sit at the Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? Whence came this idea of establishing the protective system?
I hear your answer: We did not establish it. We are neither Peers nor Deputies, nor Counselors44 of State. The capitalists have done it.
By heavens, they were in a delectable45 mood that day. What! the capitalists made this law; they established the prohibitive system, so that you laborers should make profits at their expense!
But here is something stranger still.
How is it that your pretended friends who speak to you now of the goodness, generosity46 and self-denial of capitalists, constantly express regret that you do not enjoy your political rights? From their point of view, what could you do with them? The capitalists have the monopoly of legislation, it is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have granted themselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, coal, wood and meat, which is also true. But now your pretended friends say that the capitalists, in acting47 thus, have stripped themselves, without being obliged to do it, to enrich you without your being entitled to it. Surely, if you were electors and deputies, you could not manage your affairs better; you would not even manage them as well.
If the industrial organization which rules us is made in your interest, it is a perfidy48 to demand political rights for you; for these democrats49 of a new species can never get out of this dilemma50; the law, made by the present law-makers, gives you more, or gives you less, than your natural wages. If it gives you less, they deceive you in inviting51 you to support it. If it gives you more, they deceive you again by calling on you to claim political rights, when those who now exercise them, make sacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, could not yourselves vote.
Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this article should be to cast in your hearts the germs of irritation52 against the rich. If mistaken interests still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has its root in errors, which are common to capitalists and workmen. Then, far from laboring53 to excite them against one another, let us strive to bring them together. What must be done to accomplish this? If it is true that the natural social tendencies aid in effacing54 inequality among men, all we have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove the artificial obstructions55 which interfere56 with their operation, and allow the relations of different classes to establish themselves on the principle of justice, which, to my mind, is the principle of FREEDOM.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
insinuate
|
|
| vt.含沙射影地说，暗示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
parody
|
|
| n.打油诗文，诙谐的改编诗文，拙劣的模仿；v.拙劣模仿，作模仿诗文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
perfidious
|
|
| adj.不忠的，背信弃义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
recurs
|
|
| 再发生，复发( recur的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
pier
|
|
| n.码头；桥墩，桥柱；[建]窗间壁，支柱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
champagne
|
|
| n.香槟酒；微黄色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
barters
|
|
| n.物物交换，易货( barter的名词复数 )v.作物物交换，以货换货( barter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
18
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
wholesale
|
|
| n.批发；adv.以批发方式；vt.批发，成批出售 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
retail
|
|
| v./n.零售；adv.以零售价格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
displacement
|
|
| n.移置，取代，位移，排水量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
dilate
|
|
| vt.使膨胀，使扩大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
amplify
|
|
| vt.放大，增强；详述，详加解说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
enlist
|
|
| vt.谋取(支持等)，赢得；征募；vi.入伍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
diffuse
|
|
| v.扩散；传播；adj.冗长的；四散的，弥漫的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
rations
|
|
| 定量( ration的名词复数 )； 配给量； 正常量； 合理的量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
broth
|
|
| n.原(汁)汤(鱼汤、肉汤、菜汤等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
hatchets
|
|
| n.短柄小斧( hatchet的名词复数 )；恶毒攻击；诽谤；休战 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
remitted
|
|
| v.免除（债务），宽恕( remit的过去式和过去分词 )；使某事缓和；寄回，传送 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
laborers
|
|
| n.体力劳动者，工人( laborer的名词复数 )；（熟练工人的）辅助工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
millers
|
|
| n.（尤指面粉厂的）厂主( miller的名词复数 )；磨房主；碾磨工；铣工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
bakers
|
|
| n.面包师( baker的名词复数 )；面包店；面包店店主；十三 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
counselors
|
|
| n.顾问( counselor的名词复数 )；律师；（使馆等的）参赞；（协助学生解决问题的）指导老师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
delectable
|
|
| adj.使人愉快的；美味的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
perfidy
|
|
| n.背信弃义，不忠贞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
inviting
|
|
| adj.诱人的，引人注目的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
laboring
|
|
| n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
effacing
|
|
| 谦逊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
obstructions
|
|
| n.障碍物( obstruction的名词复数 )；阻碍物；阻碍；阻挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |